INRP

یک مقاله بسیار مهم و ضروری که قبلا هم راجع بهش صحبت کرده بودیم. به یک مشکل بسیار اساسی و پارادوکسیکال جامعه علمی امروزه ما میپردازه، میتونم حتی بگم اساسی‌ترین مشکل فعلی علم.

از همزیست به انگل: تکامل انتشارات علمی انتفاعی
From symbiont to parasite: the evolution of for-profit science publishing

The profits of major for-profit publishers are astonishing. As a whole, the industry made more than $10 billion in 2015, with profits for the largest players, such as Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley, exceeding 30%.

But now, with the advent of electronic word and image processing, we also create our own graphics, proofread our own text, and in some cases typeset it. More significantly, the Internet enables us to instantly disseminate our work around the world. Publishers provide a measure of quality control by orchestrating the peer review process, but here again it is scholars who do the actual work of reviewing papers. It is thus surprising that despite the diminished (and arguably dispensable) role of the publishing industry, our community remains slavishly committed to centuries-old traditions that, we will argue, are illogical and in many cases exploitative and harmful to our community.

In an insightful satire, Scott Aaronson describes a fictitious computer game company built on principles similar to those of the for-profit publishing industry, exploiting its patrons to contribute their products and labor for free. In Aaronson’s scenario, developers donate their games to the company because they need its “seal of approval.” Experts test and debug the games for free when told that it’s their “professional duty” to do so. So, for only a trivial investment in the products, the company can charge customers high rates for the games it now owns. Aaronson concludes: “On reflection, perhaps no game developer would be gullible enough to fall for my scheme. I need a community that has a higher tolerance for the ridiculous—a community that, even after my operation is unmasked, will study it and hold meetings, but not ‘rush to judgment’ by dissociating itself from me. But who on Earth could possibly be so paralyzed by indecision, so averse to change, so immune to common sense? I’ve got it: academics!”

https://www.molbiolcell.org/doi/10.1091/mbc.E19-03-0147

🧠 @NeuroINRP
🧠 Discussion group

Molecular Biology of the Cell

From symbiont to parasite: the evolution of for-profit science publishing | Molecular Biology of the Cell

Two 17th century institutions—learned societies and scientific journals—transformed science in ways that still dominate our professional lives today. Learned societies like the American Society for Cell Biology remain relevant because they provide forums…

www.group-telegram.com/it/neuroinrp.com/1080

2.7K viewsArash, Aug 9 at 21:14

یک مقاله بسیار مهم و ضروری که قبلا هم راجع بهش صحبت کرده بودیم. به یک مشکل بسیار اساسی و پارادوکسیکال جامعه علمی امروزه ما میپردازه، میتونم حتی بگم اساسی‌ترین مشکل فعلی علم.

از همزیست به انگل: تکامل انتشارات علمی انتفاعی
From symbiont to parasite: the evolution of for-profit science publishing

The profits of major for-profit publishers are astonishing. As a whole, the industry made more than $10 billion in 2015, with profits for the largest players, such as Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley, exceeding 30%.

But now, with the advent of electronic word and image processing, we also create our own graphics, proofread our own text, and in some cases typeset it. More significantly, the Internet enables us to instantly disseminate our work around the world. Publishers provide a measure of quality control by orchestrating the peer review process, but here again it is scholars who do the actual work of reviewing papers. It is thus surprising that despite the diminished (and arguably dispensable) role of the publishing industry, our community remains slavishly committed to centuries-old traditions that, we will argue, are illogical and in many cases exploitative and harmful to our community.

In an insightful satire, Scott Aaronson describes a fictitious computer game company built on principles similar to those of the for-profit publishing industry, exploiting its patrons to contribute their products and labor for free. In Aaronson’s scenario, developers donate their games to the company because they need its “seal of approval.” Experts test and debug the games for free when told that it’s their “professional duty” to do so. So, for only a trivial investment in the products, the company can charge customers high rates for the games it now owns. Aaronson concludes: “On reflection, perhaps no game developer would be gullible enough to fall for my scheme. I need a community that has a higher tolerance for the ridiculous—a community that, even after my operation is unmasked, will study it and hold meetings, but not ‘rush to judgment’ by dissociating itself from me. But who on Earth could possibly be so paralyzed by indecision, so averse to change, so immune to common sense? I’ve got it: academics!”

https://www.molbiolcell.org/doi/10.1091/mbc.E19-03-0147

🧠 @NeuroINRP
🧠 Discussion group

BY INRP